Video: Gonzaga students placed on probation for defending themselves with legally owned handgun

posted at 4:01 pm on November 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via RCP. They live in an apartment building owned by the school and the rules governing school property are clear: If a man convicted of six felonies is unhappy that you won’t give him money, grab a blunt instrument and hope for the best. Or give him the money. That might work too. Might.

The two kids were initially facing expulsion for having a handgun on campus but the backlash has been so fast and so ferocious that Gonzaga’s president is now proposing that it reexamine its policy on guns. Not only haven’t they been expelled, they weren’t so much as suspended; they’ve been placed on probation, GU’s concession to the letter of the law. (They’re appealing that ruling.) Why the school thought to pursue action against them in the first place given the certainty of bad press they’d earn by doing so, I have no idea. Maybe they were caught between two constituencies. There probably are gun-control fans on campus, either faculty or students or both, who are outrageously outraged that these two brought one of those things on campus even though it may well have saved both their lives. If you’re a university apparatchik eager to remain in good standing in the community, you usually can’t go wrong erring on the side of insane liberal outcomes. This was a rare misfire, no pun intended.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

From what I read, the building isn’t even on campus, but just owned by the school. That was one of the kid’s reasoning as to why he’d be allowed to have the gun. The way he also told the story of what happened sounds like he has a good understanding of the law.

The best part was where the school official declared that the kids shouldn’t have opened the door until the verified who was there. So essentially it’s the kids fault that they were almost robbed/assaulted. But hey, the official also said they have security that wanders around from time to time…

I think this is a profoundly stupid policy on the part of the school. The idea that banning guns increases safety is simply, demonstrably false. And to further compound the matter by suspending someone who may have very well only be alive today because of the gun is beyond idiotic.

That being said, I think the cries of “infringement of rights” and “second amendment” are misplaced. This is not a state school. It is a private school. This housing is private school property. They can set whatever (stupid) rules they like. If they want to stop people from bringing guns onto the property, they can do so. And if a student does not like it, they can choose to live in alternate housing or attend another university. That’s the nature of private property.

The two kids were initially facing expulsion for having a handgun on campus but the backlash has been so fast and so ferocious that Gonzaga’s president is now proposing that it reexamine its policy on guns. Not only haven’t they been expelled, they weren’t so much as suspended; they’ve been placed on probation, GU’s concession to the letter of the law. (They’re appealing that ruling.) Why the school thought to pursue action against them in the first place given the certainty of bad press they’d earn by doing so, I have no idea.

Firstly, if the president is serious about the reconsideration, good for him. But you gotta hand it to these two students: absolutely spot-on for the TV interview. Suits and ties, clean cut and hair trimmed, breathtakingly respectful: “I immediately drew on Mr Taylor and Mr Taylor fled.”

Keeee-rist, double-Es who are neatly dressed, competent, polite and self-assured? I’d hire these kids on the spot! Screw the degree! They can transfer and pick up their degrees at some other school.

Not only haven’t they been expelled, they weren’t so much as suspended; they’ve been placed on probation, GU’s concession to the letter of the law.

But he and McIntosh plan to appeal their probations, he said.

“That information is going to be on our educational record, and anytime we go for a job interview and show them our transcripts, that information will be on there,” Fagan said. “We don’t feel like we should be punished just for defending ourselves.”

But you gotta hand it to these two students: absolutely spot-on for the TV interview. Suits and ties, clean cut and hair trimmed, breathtakingly respectful: “I immediately drew on Mr Taylor and Mr Taylor fled.”

Keeee-rist, double-Es who are neatly dressed, competent, polite and self-assured? I’d hire these kids on the spot! Screw the degree! They can transfer and pick up their degrees at some other school.

The War Planner on November 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM

No doubt that they look, dress and talk like good Conservative Republicans :)… And the one who pulled the gun on the thug is studying electric engineering… Most engineers tend to be conservatives…

Normally I would agree. Property owners should have the right to enact their own rules. How ’bout if a landlord doesn’t want to rent to gays? Blacks? Whites? Liberals? Libertarians? Christians? Muslim? Do you get the point yet?

The right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. By renting the place, the tenant is allowed certain rights of their own. Especially those specifically written in the Constitution. Or its amendments (added for sticklers).

Really who knew that declaring something a Gun-Free Zone would not ensure safety, but merely draw a 6 Time Felon? Though to be fair, the felon did not possess a firearm, so at least HE was following the rules…unlike those Pesky Kidz! He woudda gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for them and their pistol!

My oldest is a senior at Gonzaga. I have been there a few times over the last 3+ years. I can’t remember seeing any students that did not look somewhat presentable. Much more so than what I have seen at schools on the Seattle side of the state. I talked with him about this story this morning and he said that most students are furious over how the school handled it.

The university is more upset with two students breaking a contractual obligation than they are with the person committing a felony?

Is that a fair summary?

PolAgnostic on November 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Yes, the Felon is a Person of Colour, disadvantaged by this Oppressive, Structurally Racist Capitalist Elitist Society and it’s Prison-Industrial Complex, he is the VICTIM here, whereas the two students are obviously scions of this Oppressive, Racist, Sexist Homophobic Society that exploits Womyn, the Poor and People of Colour AND they are obviously the recipients of the benefits of White Privilege. They had a firearm, the Felon did not. In a truly Just Society Mr Taylor would have been the recipient of not only an Obamphone, ObamaCare, but also an ObamaGlock, paid for by a nominal surcharge on the licenses issued by the Federal Government.

They live in an apartment building owned by the school and the rules governing school property are clear

I didn’t see anything at the link which addresses the not so clear policy pointed out by Eugene Volokh in his brief post on this. I would think if it was clear, Gonzaga would have included that clarity in their statement.

Volokh also brings up an issue of whether the search and seizure by Campus Police was in conformance with Washington’s landlord-tenant law. All in all, I’ll bet Gonzaga doesn’t have rules that were clear in this case and I wouldn’t be surprised if they violated WA laws with their search and seizure.

The university is more upset with two students breaking a contractual obligation than they are with the person committing a felony?

Is that a fair summary?

PolAgnostic on November 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Yup…the fact that these kids dared to go against the wise rules of their academic overlords is enough to warrant expulsion. They must be made an example of so other students don’t dare question the handbook.

It’s mostly conservative (it’s nothing like Seattle …and it’s night and day different than California …from whence I moved two years ago this month, in my bestest move evah …which explains my civic boosterism). People are polite. Strangers are polite and friendly. Teenagers are even polite.

People who work in Home Depot and Lowes actually come up to you – out of the blue – and ask if you need help. And then …they help. Remarkable. And remarkably common.

The standard joke around here goes:

Q:If it’s 9:30PM in Seattle, what time is it in Spokane?A:1964.

…it turns out that living in 1964 is awesome.

…Gonzaga is a Jesuit university btw. With a pretty darn good basketball team (this town is simply basketball mad).

It’s a great place to live. Clean air. Clean water. Not too wet (eastern Washington is nothing like the coast). Not too hot. No state income tax. Reasonable housing prices. Cultural amenities (for such a small city). Recreational opportunities all over the place. Traffic isn’t an issue.

Pretty damn safe for a smallish city (call it a half million people total in the Spokane/Coeur D’Alene “metro area”).

You can do FAR worse than here.

You just have to be okay with snow a few months out of the year.

…for a California boy (I’d never really seen snow, let alone lived in it), that was not a high hurdle. Turns out I like snow lol.

I live just outside Spokane and have spent a fair amount of time on & around campus.

1. The apartments are owned by the university but aren’t actually on campus. This is important because it’s actually a relatively high crime urban area. There should be little expectation of absolute safety in this area. And if the university can’t provide an absolute guarantee of safety (guarded entrances, etc.), then who are they to tell the students how they can or cannot protect themselves.

2. Spokane has the same types of crimes that most cities this size with a central urban downtown have. But has become worse recently. Most of it is due to the influx of drugs and gangs and the police coming out and saying that they don’t have time to deal with property crimes. Liberals in charge of the city aren’t helping much.

3. I had a slight hope that they would be expelled and win a massive civil rights lawsuit against the university.

4. The uproar has been massive. My Facebook has been full of students and former students (many of whom are liberal) up in arms against this persecution. This is a case where the ‘smart’ people in charge of the university were forced to realize how out of touch they are with the rest of the populace.

5. Zero tolerance policies are in absolute opposition of common sense policies.

Campus security entered this off campus apartment without a warrant and took the students’ guns. They haven’t returned them, so now the the students have reported it as theft to the Spokane police. Gun theft is a felony. Way to go Gonzaga.

Normally I would agree. Property owners should have the right to enact their own rules. How ’bout if a landlord doesn’t want to rent to gays? Blacks? Whites? Liberals? Libertarians? Christians? Muslim? Do you get the point yet?

Yes. And my answer is, they should not have to. Period. Anymore than I should be told who I have to admit into my home.

The right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. By renting the place, the tenant is allowed certain rights of their own. Especially those specifically written in the Constitution. Or its amendments (added for sticklers).

cozmo on November 11, 2013 at 4:22 PM

The rights enshrined in the Constitution as protected have nothing to do with the landlord/tenant relationship. The Bill of Rights is there for the purpose of restricting government. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with private business and its customers. If we are to say that the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms regardless of what the landlord says, than we must also say that the First Amendment gives you the right to stand in the lobby of the landlord’s main office building and give speeches all day long about why one should not rent from them.

There is quite a difference between possessing a legal product in your home (rented, or owned) and occupying private property to rant (the first amendment applies to government, fire in a theater and all that).

You would also be sorely disappointed as a landlord. Not to mention bankrupt.

Fagan and McIntosh said they didn’t know about GU’s weapons policy. They said they didn’t realize that rules pertaining to on-campus conduct applied to the Sinto Apartments….

Even if someone had alerted him to the zero-tolerance weapons policy, McIntosh said that he wouldn’t have gotten rid of his pistol.

“I would’ve probably not have lived there,” McIntosh said. “I would’ve moved out … I do not feel safe, because it’s the Logan Neighborhood. It’s not a good place.”

So, did the University make any attempt to warn these students (or any other potential or current tennants) or dissuade them from moving into the apartment, even though it knew (or should have known) that it was “not a good place”?

Seems like the University might have been playing awfully fast-and-loose with the welfare of its students. I imagine that the student’s attorney will ask some interesting questions about this, as well as determining how much “security” the University actually provided for the “off campus” housing from which it collected rent.

The right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. By renting the place, the tenant is allowed certain rights of their own. Especially those specifically written in the Constitution. Or its amendments (added for sticklers).

cozmo on November 11, 2013 at 4:22 PM

The rights enshrined in the Constitution as protected have nothing to do with the landlord/tenant relationship. The Bill of Rights is there for the purpose of restricting government. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with private business and its customers. If we are to say that the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms regardless of what the landlord says, than we must also say that the First Amendment gives you the right to stand in the lobby of the landlord’s main office building and give speeches all day long about why one should not rent from them.

Shump on November 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM

I think it gets a lot more complicated in the real world. When you rent a property in a bad neighborhood and ban self-defense weapons, you’re essentially telling all renters that they don’t have the right to protect themselves.

That’s a very serious thing.

I wonder how many property owners who would do that would be upfront with their renters about the restriction on having the means to defend yourself. I suspect in most cases they might put it in the contract, but keep quiet about it, for fear of not being able to rent the place. Or else they would encourage the renter to believe that they don’t really enforce the provision.

Regardless, if the choice is to let myself get attacked or violate a provision of the lease and risk losing the lease, I know which one I would choose.

In this case, specifically, the students don’t seem to be aware that they were restricted from having a gun on the premises. I suspect there’s a reason they weren’t aware, and the university is trying to enforce a provision after the fact that they didn’t really spell out before.

The wording of the clause against possession of guns seems to apply to university-owned buildings on campus. It may be that they panicked and tried to apply the rule when it didn’t really apply.

That being said, I think the cries of “infringement of rights” and “second amendment” are misplaced. This is not a state school. It is a private school. This housing is private school property. They can set whatever (stupid) rules they like. If they want to stop people from bringing guns onto the property, they can do so. And if a student does not like it, they can choose to live in alternate housing or attend another university. That’s the nature of private property.

Shump on November 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Soooo… if I rent an apartment to someone, can I deny them the ability to fill out an absentee voting ballet? According to you, I can revoke any Constitutional law just because they are on my premises. Correct?

The rights enshrined in the Constitution as protected have nothing to do with the landlord/tenant relationship. The Bill of Rights is there for the purpose of restricting government. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with private business and its customers. If we are to say that the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms regardless of what the landlord says, than we must also say that the First Amendment gives you the right to stand in the lobby of the landlord’s main office building and give speeches all day long about why one should not rent from them.

Shump on November 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Sooo… if I own a plantation, I can fill it with slaves? The 13th Amendment only applies to slaves with respect to government when the slaves are on public property? Correct?

I have lived in Spokane for almost 3 years now. Overall, it’s a great place to live. It’s more than a little infuriating that we keep making national news based on the violence and/or stupidity of a few people. The city is such that the “bad” parts of town are mixed in with the good- you can be in a great area, but go two streets over and it’s like a completely different city. I can sum it up with this- I have 2.5 kids, and my wife and I love the area enough to have just bought a house… but I still conceal-carry daily.
The part of this whole story I find funniest is that when I was looking for a grad school, I looked at Gonzaga- but passed when I saw they prohibit guns on campus. At the U of U, I carried every day for undergrad. Why should Gonzaga expect me to value my life less now that I have a degree, job, and family?

I was born and raised in Spokane, and as a Catholic I wanted to go to Gonzaga, which is a private Catholic college. I lasted one semester. It was that liberal. I couldn’t stand it. I transferred to WSU, which, while a state university, was much more balanced than Gonzaga.

I don’t live in Spokane anymore but that city has a bit of a meth problem, and the crime is high for a city of that size. While Gonzaga is liberal, the city itself trends more conservative, and punishing these students for defending themselves would not have ended well. I’m not surprised Gonzaga is backtracking. I’m also not surprised its reflexive response was initially anti-gun.

No, the picture of the gold one you posted is a .44. Newer Desert Eagles have the caliber stamped on the forward left front of the barrel. Clearly visible on the example you provided.

When the Desert Eagle first came out, it didn’t have that marking. it also had a differently shaped safety and slide release. You have to have a really strong thumb to operate the slide release on the early Eagles. They also didn’t need the caliber stamp to identify them. It took a while for them to get the .44 ready for for market. And the .50 came much later. That makes the .357 the “daddy” Eagle.

Did I mention that early Eagles had a four digit serial number. IIRC, those are the rare good one’s.

Campus security entered this off campus apartment without a warrant and took the students’ guns. They haven’t returned them, so now the the students have reported it as theft to the Spokane police. Gun theft is a felony. Way to go Gonzaga.

juliesa on November 11, 2013 at 5:13 PM

This is interesting. I hope to hear that the “security guards” were arrested for theft. And the guys get their guns back.

I was a student at a major state university not too long ago, and at one point, desperate for extra money, I took a part-time job with campus security. Campus security is a joke. I was actually more worried about the campus security guys than I was about other kinds of criminals. It was a bunch of lug-heads who’s main interest was peering into girls’ dorm room windows. It’s all they talked about. Their attitude was that the girls were ‘sluts’ so they deserved it. The only real work they did was locking certain doors at certain hours. They never once expressed a concern about crime. I quit after two days.

Soooo… if I rent an apartment to someone, can I deny them the ability to fill out an absentee voting ballet? According to you, I can revoke any Constitutional law just because they are on my premises. Correct?

dominigan on November 11, 2013 at 6:36 PM

I don’t see why not. If you were a guest in my home, could I tell you that you can’t do something and, if you insisted on doing it anyway, ask you to leave? I think it’s pretty well accepted that I could. If so, then the rules that a property owner sets out for tenants should be no different. Oh, I know that legislation and the courts have said it’s different, but then again, legislation and the courts have said abortion is a Constitutionally protected right.

I trust the market, however, and I suspect that a landlord who put a clause into the lease that tenants cannot fill out absentee ballots would go out of business fairly quickly. I don’t see the need for government — and especially the federal government — to get involved in something that the market will sort out quite nicely on its own.

Sooo… if I own a plantation, I can fill it with slaves? The 13th Amendment only applies to slaves with respect to government when the slaves are on public property? Correct?

dominigan on November 11, 2013 at 6:39 PM

First of all, I specifically said the Bill of Rights applies to the government. Last I checked, the 13th amendment was not a part of the Bill of Rights. Of course there are provisions in the Constitution that are written to apply to the states or the general citizenry. The abolition of slavery is one of them. The Second Amendment is not. The Second Amendment applies specifically to federal government restrictions on gun rights.

Remember, rule of thumb for PROPERLY interpreting the Constitution is that no power of the federal government exists unless it is specifically delegated to it. The Constitution bans slavery and gives Congress the power to enforce that ban through legislation. Fair enough. But unless specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government has no right what-so-ever to tell a private property owner what they can and can’t do with their property.

Sounds like a good school to stay away from. Can you imagine what the agenda is? I can, and I would not recommend this place of higher education at all. They all seem to drift into the same mold where professors are teaching these young minds a warped way of life.